Re: Murder and free will
The original statement:
[ QUOTE ]
What you describe is what I meant by "irrational skepticism." If you make the statement that "the universe is unintelligible" That is an intelligent statement about the universe, and thus is self-contradictory, it cannot logically stand. Now of course, you can deny logic, but this needs to be logically sound itself in order to stand "logic is false" means "logic is true" (now that you throw out the laws of logic). But if you say there is some possibility of knowledge, then it is necessary to presuppose the entire biblical worldview.
[/ QUOTE ]
Responding to each statement you have made in response:
1)Logic does not need to be ultimate form of knowledge that you suppose that it must.
Umm ok. I am unclear as to what you mean by "ultimate form of knowledge." Could you clarify this? This confusion is reflected in my responses to your other statements, so do forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying.
2)I take a Kantian view and think that we cannot have ultimate knowledge about existence as a whole, but instead we use the human faculty of reason to make sense of the world as best we can.
I'm saying that apart from God there is no sense. You cannot do "as best you can" because you don't know what is true or false apart from God soveign will.
3)It is not contradictory to believe that humans use rationality to understand existence but that existence itself is not fully comprehendible by the human rational faculty.
I agree. I never said existence was fully comprehendible, but just that the only way for existence to be comprehendible in part or whole is the soveignty of God.
4) I do not presuppose that the universe is bound by logic -- it appears you do -- but I do think that human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic.
I must say I am having trouble understanding the difference between what you mean by the statements "the universe is not bound by logic" but "human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic". could you explain this?
|